While I appreciate your concern about the trichotomy; it was there for the explicit purpose of delineating between scientific and political sources. It also showed the sources were balanced in number, and hence discouraged link spamming of further links. Now without headers they all look the same and people will be more inclined to add more links. I don't want either to happen. - RoyBoy 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On multiple articles, you have been re-inserting disputed edits without prior talk page consensus. This is a form of disruptive editing called edit warring. On wikipedia, editors work together as a community, and build consensus for controversial changes through discussion and compromise. Have you had a chance to read WP:BRD? Bold edits are encouraged. However, if an editor in good faith reverts your bold edit, it is never appropriate to re-instate the controversial edit. Instead, the editor pushing for the change should go to the talk page, start a new discussion making the proposal for the changes, and discussing in detail why you feel the edit is necessary and within wikipedia guidelines. Instead of starting a discussion and trying to build consensus for your changes, you reverted back to them without discussion and in spite of multiple other editor's concerns. I ask you now, to in the future please try to avoid edit warring and needlessly reverting other editors, but instead use article talk pages to discuss your proposals whenever you meet opposition to a bold edit of yours. If you have any questions about any of this, or questions about how wikipedia works in general, feel free to ask. If you want to discuss the article content further, please use those article's talk pages (there is a tab at the top of each article that says "discussion"). Hope this helps.-Andrew c[talk] 15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. David Mestel(Talk) 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're adding advice questions to article discussion pages. Those pages are for discussion about the article, not for you to tap Wikipedian's pool of knowledge to satisfy your curiosity. Please stop. Additionally, you have been spamming the same question in several places; a tactic that is unnecessary even when the question is on task. About your Venuti questions: buy this album. You'll have the answer fairly quickly. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Birthday quartet intro.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?BJTalk 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Birthday quartet theme.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?BJTalk 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Geremia, Since I took the trouble to identify the Mozart on the sound clips you posted at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, would you kindly tell me where they are from? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct, you made the movie. But the visuals WITHIN that movie were made by Imaginova Corp and are copyrighted. Their copyright supersedes your "derivative" copyright. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I am currently working on the Compulsory Public Education article and I noticed that you have made some contributions to the article on Oregon's Compulsory Education Act. I am working on the Compulsory Public Education article in conjunction with a course at Syracuse University that has partnered with WikiPorject: U.S. Public Policy. Any feedback or suggestions you have on the current state of the article would be appreciated. Thanks! Clairestum (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It's great that you're trying to help out at Religion and abortion, but Esoglou and I have actually been in the process of working out the wording and we seem to be nearing a summary of the main article that is both brief and accurate. Any fundamental rewrites should probably be brought to the talk page first.

Oh, it seemed like you were unsure of the criteria for RS when we were talking about Clowes's Facts of Life (you mentioned that it was a printed book and available on Amazon/WorldCat, so I was explaining why that doesn't work). I just wanted to offer my services if there was anything else you were confused about.

Oh, and incidentally, you seem to have done a bit of work on Ensoulment, obviously - do you just focus on the Catholic stuff? Because at some point I'd like to write the section for Judaism, and I do have a few resources already, but if you could point me in the right direction for more (if your interest is more general/not just on the Catholic doctrine), that would be great as well. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is RS? Also, I thought there used to be a Judaism section, but now it's not there? Thanks—Geremia (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

RS = WP:RS, or Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. There was a Judaism section; however, it had links but no content, so I hid it from view. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That would seem to invalidate, e.g., source #25 since it is a self-published blog.—Geremia (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You're exactly right! I'm just too lazy to change the citation to refer to the (apparently) reliable source that the blog post quotes, the Irish Theological Quarterly, rather than the blog post itself. ;) I should probably do that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You can only do that if you actually read Irish Theological Quarterly yourself. You have to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, not "say where someone else (allegedly) got it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you are adding links to the websites of two organizations to several articles, you might like to read the advice on WP:External links and WP:REFSPAM. External links are not permitted in the body of the article (e.g., "This is an organization that promotes..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Geremia. Are you going to flesh out your addition to the Summa article with a reference? Is that idea from the Dimsdale book? I couldn't quite find it there. Thanks. --Kenatipospeak! 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't do anything -- I found a ref in the Fordham College monthly. Thanks. --Kenatipospeak! 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately we only have a snippet view, so I can't determine the author of the article or the exact month -- but it has to be either November or December 'cause I saw a letter in there dated October 25. I'll keep looking. --Kenatipospeak! 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out, the bound volumes cover a school year. Still don't know the author yet. --Kenatipospeak! 20:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What on Earth is this? Your statement is 100% incorrect, per both those articles, which I assume you have read. Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis: "The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer." Abortion and mental health: ""Post-abortion syndrome" has not found widespread acceptance outside the pro-life community; the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS as an actual diagnosis or condition, and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or in the ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions." Deliberately adding misinformation like that is unacceptable and may be grounds for sanction by an administrator. Please don't do anything like that again. If you don't feel that you can edit neutrally in the topic area, you shouldn't be editing it at all. NW(Talk) 05:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the discussions on either Talk:Abortion or Talk:Abortion and mental health before adding the new Coleman study? Could you please revert yourself and contribute to one of those discussions please? Thank you. NW(Talk) 05:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as a general FYI, abortion-related articles are under a range of community-imposed restrictions, including 1RR (no more than one revert per 24 hours). The details can be found here. If you were already aware of these restrictions, feel free to ignore or remove this message. MastCellTalk 05:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I came over to say the same thing. You've been riding roughshod over this rule, so I hope it's just that you weren't aware of it. Now that you are, please follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As I've said numerous times, Abortion and mental health violates WP:POV in its failure even to give any weight to the minority view that abortion does cause mental health problems. Neglecting reviews that show a connection, it currently says, with a reference to one study that concludes there is not a connection: "Systematic reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that that there are no difference in the long-term mental health of women who obtain induced abortions as compared to women in appropriate control groups." There are numerous unresolved WP:POV discussions on its talk page. User:NuclearWarfare and User:ArtifexMayhem have reverted my edits to include {{Cleanup}} tags to fix these WP:POV violations despite the fact that discussions have not been resolved on the talk page. It is not a resolved issue; hence, the {{Cleanup}} tags must remain.

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether you feel your edits are correct, you remain bound by the one revert per day restriction – and you have violated it. In addition, I am resetting your block and increasing it to three days because you have attempted to evade it by editing while logged out. — Coren(talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Abortion and mental health needs some admin intervention since the pro-life viewpoint on this issue is given no scientific weight except in the pseudo-scientific, political discussions of Post Abortion Syndrome. There are unresolved discussions on the talk page regarding the article's potential violation of WP:NPOV since it still cites absolutely no scientific paper supporting a correlation between abortion and mental health, as though those papers are pseudoscience. Whenever users like User:Anupam or myself make constructive edits or reversions that would help this article conform to WP:NPOV by giving the "pro-correlation" viewpoint some representation, User:NuclearWarfare, User:Roscelese, User:MastCell, et al. promptly revert them, saying to discuss it on the talk page, yet they refuse to contribute to some discussions on WP:NPOV; meanwhile, the article makes no progress. Their views seem to be that just because most major scientific bodies do not recognize a correlation, then only articles supporting a pro-choice viewpoint should be included. Since this article also mentions the political aspects of this issue, why cannot the scientific papers and organizations supporting the pro-life viewpoint be included, too? Also, User:Roscelesehas been reportedstalking my edits before, so it seems she and others are trying to prevent me from making contributions to certain articles, in violation of WP:HOUND. Lastly, if you reject this request to unblock my account, is there no way you could keep abortion-related or 1RR articles blocked and unblock everything else? I just found out about this violation today while trying to edit the Pierre Duhem article, which has nothing to do with abortion nor 1RR. Thanks Geremia (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were warned about 1RR and repeatedly ignored it. You're lucky you're not topic banned at this point. Toddst1(talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

I'm not sure what happened here, but please watch out to make sure that you don't accidentally do something like that again. I reverted your edit, since it removed so many other comments and quite a few threads at the bottom of the page, and restored your comment to the appropriate thread. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban means that you are not allowed to edit in that topic area. Further violations of your topic ban will see you brought to WP:AE. Have a nice day. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Any further violations of your topic ban will result in a block. Why unnecessarily do this to yourself? NW(Talk) 05:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I'm topic-banned, then why can I still edit it?Geremia (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The ban is not enforced by Wikipedia software, it is up to you to observe it by avoiding the listed articles. If you are not willing to pay attention to the problem, sanctions may be imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I came in to say the same thing. You are long past the point of being let off with a warning. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Hi. I notice you have called Conservapedia "the less biased equivalent of Wikipedia". I have no interest in arguing with you. My interest is in understanding why you think Conservapedia is less biased. Could you explain it to me? Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. There is a strange dynamic at work on Wikipedia in regards to editors and sysops; it is based on an older paradigm of a centralized IT model which has become outdated. Most people, as you probably already know, are resistant to change, and have difficulty imagining and predicting the future. As for the linked explanations of bias, see our article on tu quoque. The solution to the left-right paradigm is not to give in to one side or another, but to move to the center and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Unfortunately, there are elements in the world which will continue to try to move people from one side to the other in order to assert control over individuals. From where I stand, Wikipedia gives readers more of a choice in having access to multiple competing views. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

In this edit you wrote a Julian calendar date as 1546-04-08. Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers calls for editors to avoid dates in that format that would violate ISO 8601 (even though Wikipedia hasn't formally adopted that standard). So there are two problems with 1546-04-08; it is before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, and it is a Julian calendar date.

I am curious about how many editors had ever noticed the restriction in "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers", and how many editors had ever heard of ISO 8601. I'd appreciate your reaction. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware it was a Julian date. By "Julian date" do you just mean a date prior to the institution of the Gregorian calendar? thanks Geremia (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the document itself (assuming it was accurately transcribed) gives the date celebrata die VIII. Aprilis, 1546. That was before the first adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1582. So it must be a Julian calendar date. I understand it is rare for historians to extrapolate the Gregorian calender to dates before it was adopted (see Proleptic Gregorian calendar). However, ISO 8601 calls for dates in that format to always use the Gregorian calendar, even if the area under discussion, such as early 16th century Britain, used the Julian calendar. Wikipedia editors don't seem to do very well at following that prescription; indeed, they don't seem to do very well at specifying which calendar was used in articles where it isn't obvious. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)